Indicator definition

Change of the amount of agriculture, forest and other semi-natural and natural land taken by urban and other artificial land development. It includes areas sealed by construction and urban infrastructure as well as urban green areas and sport and leisure facilities. The main drivers of land take are grouped in processes resulting in the extension of:

housing, services and recreation,

industrial and commercial sites,

transport networks and infrastructures,

mines,quarries and waste dumpsites,

construction sites.

Units

Units of measurement are hectares or km2.

Results are presented as average annual change, % of total area of the country and % of the various land cover types taken by urban development.

Note: Surfaces relate to the extension of urban systems that may include parcels not covered by constructions, streets or other sealed surfaces. This is in particular the case of discontinuous urban fabric, which is considered as a whole. Symmetrically, monitoring the indicator with satellite images leads to exclude most of the linear transport infrastructures, too narrow to be observed directly.

Key policy question: How much and in what proportions is agricultural, forest and other semi-natural and natural land being taken for urban and other artificial land development?

Key messages

Land take by the expansion of residential areas and construction sites is the main cause of the increase in the coverage of urban land at the European level. Agricultural zones and, to a lesser extent, forests and semi-natural and natural areas, are disappearing in favour of the development of artificial surfaces. This affects biodiversity since it decreases habitats, the living space of a number of species, and fragments the landscapes that support and connect them. The annual land take in 36 European countries was 111 788 ha/year in 2000-2006. In 21 countries covered by both periods (1990-2000 and 2000-2006) the annual land take increased by 9 % in the later period. The composition of land taken areas changed, too. More arable land and permanent crops, forests, grasslands and open spaces and less pastures and mosaic farmland were taken by artificial development then in 1990-2000.

Relative contribution of land-cover categories to uptake by urban and other artificial land development

Key assessment

The largest land cover category taken by urban and other artificial land development was agriculture land. On the average, almost 46 % of all areas that changed to artificial surfaces were arable land or permanent crops during 2000-2006. However, compared to the previous decade (1990-2000) in 21 countries covered both by Corine Land Cover (CLC) 1990-2000 and 2000-2006 it increased to 53 %. This dominant land take was particularly important in Denmark (90 %), Slovakia (85 %), Italy (74 %), Poland (67 %), Germany (65 %) and Hungary (65 %).

Pastures and mixed farmland were, on average, the next category being taken, representing 30.5 % of the total. It was approximately 6 % less then in 1990-2000. However, in several countries or regions, these landscapes were the major source for land uptake (in a broad sense), i.e. in Luxembourg (77 %), Albania (74 %), Ireland (70%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (70 %) and the Netherlands (60%).

The proportion of forests and transitional woodland shrub taken for artificial development during the period was slightly above 14 %. It was significantly higher in Finland (79 %), Norway (70 %), Sweden (61 %), Slovenia (61 %), Portugal (50%), Croatia (46 %) and Estonia (45 %).

The consumption of natural grassland, heathland and sclerophylous vegetation by artificial land take was 7.6 % of the whole area, but in Iceland (76 %) it was the largest taken class and significant proportions occurred also in Cyprus (23 %), Belgium (21 %) and Austria (20 %).

Open space with little or no vegetation contributed to taken land with 1.3 %. Larger proportions were in Iceland (8 %), Montenegro (7 %), Turkey (5 %), Norway (5 %) and Spain (3 %).

The least taken classes were wetlands (0.3 %) and water bodies (0.2 %). However, wetlands’ contribution in Estonia (6 %), Iceland (5 %) and Norway (3 %) was rather high.

In general, more forests, grasslands and open spaces were taken by artificial land development then in the previous decade. This meant a higher loss of natural ecosystems in 2000-2006.

Specific assessment

At the European level, housing, services and recreation made up a third of the overall increase in urban and other artificial area between 2000 and 2006. Compared to the previous decade (1990-2000), in 21 countries covered in both periods this driver decreased from 52 % to 31 %. However, the proportion of new land for housing was significantly higher in Albania (95 %), Kosovo (85 %), Bosnia and Herzegovina (75 %) and it was at least 50 % in Cyprus, Romania or Ireland. The building of new sport and recreation areas was an important driver in mountain or Nordic countries as Austria (43 %), Norway (43 %), Iceland (28 %), Finland (23 %) and Sweden (22 %), to less extent also in the Mediterranean countries as Cyprus (19 %) or Bulgaria (12 %).

The second largest area (29 %) was taken by construction sites. These sites represent transitional areas that will turn into other newly urbanised classes in future. Thus large coverage of construction sites indicates a potential of further artificial development. This driver increased almost 4 times compared to period 1990-2000 (in 21 countries). Construction was a dominant driver in the Netherlands (54 %), Lithuania (54 %), Slovakia (53 %), Slovenia (51 %), Spain (50 %) and Hungary (49 %).

Land take for industrial and commercial sites covered 16 % of the whole newly developed land. In 21 countries covered in both periods it decreased from 23 % (1900-2000) to 17 % (2000-2006). The construction of new industrial and commercial sites was particularly important driver in Luxembourg (43 %), Italy (41 %), Belgium (40 %), Latvia (33 %), Slovakia (30 %) and France (25 %).

The proportion on newly created mines, quarries and dumpsites was 15 % in 36 European countries, but it was significantly higher in Serbia (51 %), Bulgaria (50 %), the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (40 %), Estonia (47 %), Latvia (33 %) and Montenegro (33 %). In 21 countries it remained stable at 14 % during both periods.

Although land take for transport infrastructures is underestimated in surveys that are based on remote sensing as Corine Land Cover, a more than double increase (from 3 % to 7 % in 21 countries covered by both periods) of the total new artificial cover supports importance of this driver. In fact, the proportions of land taken for transport were rather high in countries as Croatia (53 %), Slovenia (17 %), Portugal (17 %), Poland (15 %) and Sweden (11 %). Land take by linear features with a width below 100 m (majority of roads and railways) is not included in the statistics, which focus mostly on areal infrastructures (airports, harbours...). Soil sealing and fragmentation by linear infrastructures therefore need to be observed by other means.

Specific policy question: Where have the more important artificial land uptakes occurred?

Mean annual urban land take 2000-2006 per country as a percentage of 2000 artificial land

Note:Land cover changes in Liechtenstein remained below the detection level of Corine Land Cover change methodology. In some large countries, dates of satellite images for regions may differ by several years

Mean annual urban land take as a percentage of total urban land take 2000-2006

Note:Land cover changes in Liechtenstein remained below the detection level of Corine Land Cover change methodology. In some large countries, dates of satellite images for regions may differ by several years

Note:Map shows spatial distribution and intensity of land take for urban and other artificial land (lcf2 Urban residential sprawl + lcf3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures) over particular territory in 2000 - 2006.

Specific assessment

Considering the contribution of each country to new total urban and infrastructure sprawl in Europe, mean annual values range from 21.4 % (Spain) to 0.001% (Malta), with intermediate values in France (12.9 %), Germany (10.1 %) and Italy (7.4 %). Differences between countries are strongly related to their size and population density (Figure 3).

The pace of land take observed by comparing it with the initial extent of urban and other artificial areas in 2000 gives another picture (Figure 4). From this perspective, the average value in 36 European countries covered by CLC 2000-2006 ranges up to an annual increase of 0.6% (in 21 countries covered by both periods it remains also 0.6 %). Urban development is fastest in Albania (5.0 % increase in urban area per year), Iceland (3.3 %), Spain (2.7 %), Cyprus (2.6 %) and Ireland (2.4 %). Compared to the previous period 1990-2000, Spain speeded up by 0.8 %, Ireland slowed down by 0.5 %, Portugal by 1.2 % (now 1.6 %), and the Netherlands by 0.3 % (now 1.3 %).

Land uptake by urban and other artificial development in 36 European countries amounted to 686 414 hectares in 6 years. It represents 0.1% of the total territory of these countries. This may seem low, but spatial differences are very important and an artificial sprawl in many regions is very intense (Figure 5).

Data sources

Justification for indicator selection

Land is a finite resource and the way it is used is one of the principal drivers of environmental change, with significant impacts on quality of life and ecosystems as well as on the management of infrastructure. As Europe’s share of land used for production (agriculture, forestry, etc.) is one of the highest on the globe, conflicting land-use demands will require decisions that will involve hard trade-offs. Land use in Europe is driven by a number of important drivers. Drivers as the increasing demand for living space per person, the link between economic activity, increased mobility and growth of transport infrastructure usually result in urban uptake. Urbanization rates vary substantially, with coastal and mountain areas among the most affected regions in Europe due to the increasing demand for recreation and leisure.

The impact of urbanisation depends on the area of land taken and on the intensity of land use, for example the degree of soil sealing and the population density. Land take by urban and infrastructure is generally irreversible and results in soil sealing – the loss of soil resources due to the covering of land for housing, roads or other construction work. Converted areas become highly specialised in terms of land use and support few functions related to socio-economic activities and housing. Urban land take consumes mostly agricultural land, but also reduces space for habitats and ecosystems that provide important services like the regulation of the water balance and protection against floods, particularly if soil is highly sealed. Land occupied by man-made surfaces and dense infrastructure connects human settlements and fragments landscapes. It is also a significant source of water, soil and air pollution.

In addition, lower population densities – a result of urban sprawl - require more energy for transport and heating or cooling. The consequences of urban life styles, such as air pollution, noise, greenhouse gas emission and impacts on ecosystem services, are felt within urban areas as well as in regions far beyond them.

Although, land use trends since 2000 remain the same as in the previous decade (1990-2000) and most have slowed down, land uptake by urban development and transport infrastructure has been slightly faster than in the previous 10 years and it follows the continuing trend, observed already during the 1980s (EEA, 2002).

Next Corine land cover update with reference year 2012 is being produced and it is expected to be available in 2014.

Scientific references:

No rationale references
available

Policy context and targets

Context description

The main policy objective of this indicator is to measure the pressure from the development of urban and other artificial land use on natural and managed landscapes that are necessary 'to protect and restore the functioning of natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity' (6th Environment Action Programme – 6EAP COM(2001)31). EU 6th Environmental Action Programme addresses land resources and land use mainly through the thematic strategies on natural resources, the urban environment and soil protection (plus the Commission's proposal for a soil framework directive).

Other important references can be found in A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (COM(2001)264), and the thematic documents related to it, such as the Commission Communication 'Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment' (COM(2004)60), Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions (COM(2006)385), Europe 2020 (COM(2010)2020), general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as well as the concept of territorial cohesion. In the context of land use it is relevant to mention the role of the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) that deals with the protection, management and planning of all landscapes in Europe.

Policy decisions that shape land-use involve trade-offs between many sectoral interests, including industry, transport, energy, mining, agriculture and forestry. These trade-offs are eventually implemented through spatial planning and land management practice in the Member States. Although subsidiarity principle assigns land and urban planning responsibilities to national and regional levels, most European policies have a direct or indirect effect on urban development. In particular, the effective implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) Directives has shown that they can improve the consideration of environmental aspects in planning projects, plans and programmes, contribute to more systematic and transparent planning, and improve participation and consultation. The far-reaching consequences of European and other policies for spatial impacts are, however, only partially perceived and understood. Tackling the challenges needs completion of a comprehensive knowledge base and better awareness of the complexity of the problems as currently expressed in the discussion towards a ‘territorial impact assessment’ instrument (Territorial, 2010).

Initiatives towards such an integrated approach, as requested in the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion 2007–2013 (COM(2005)0229), implying compliance with the precautionary principle, efficient use of natural resources and minimisation of waste and pollution, need to be vigorously pursued and, in particular, implemented.

The importance of multi-functionality land is also massively reinforced by the emerging policy and scientific consensus on the importance of land management practices for mitigating and adapting to climate change, as stated by United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change activities on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). However it may often be difficult to estimate greenhouse gas removals by and emissions from land use and forestry resulting from LULUCF activities (UNFCCC). EU climate change policy addresses land use in its White paper for climate change and adaptation by measures aiming at increasing the resilience of land-based production and ecosystems in general (COM(2009)469).

Targets

Although, there are no quantitative targets for land take for urban development at the European level, different documents reflect the need for better planning to control urban growth and the extension of infrastructures (policies relating explicitly to land-use issues, and especially physical and spatial planning, have generally been the responsibility of the authorities in Member States). The European Commission's Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) introduces for the first time an initiative 'no net land take by 2050' that would imply that all new urbanisation will either occur on brown-fields or that any new land take will need to be compensated by reclamation of artificial land.

European policy, although having no spatial planning responsibility, sets the framing conditions for planning. At the European level, the 1999 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a non-binding framework that aims to coordinate various European regional policy impacts, already advocates the development of a sustainable, polycentric and balanced urban system with compact cities and strengthening of the partnerships between urban and rural areas; parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge; and wise management of natural areas and the cultural heritage. The 2008 Green Paper on territorial cohesion, and the 2007 EU Territorial Agenda and Action Plan by the Territorial Agenda of the EU and the Action programme for its implementation (COPTA, 2007) build further on the ESDP. Specific actions relevant in the field of ‘Land’, in particular are action 2.1d: ‘Urban sprawl’ and action 2.2 ‘Territorial impact of EU policies’.

Demand for new urban areas may be partly satisfied by brown-field remediation. Its environmental advantages of are clear: relieving pressure on rural areas and green-field sites, reducing pollution costs, and more efficient energy use and natural resource consumption, facilitating economic diversification and emerging habitat (housing) requirements. Europe has several examples of regional strategies for economic regeneration and brown-field development (The OECD Territorial Outlook 2001) and recycling of artificial surfaces in several countries reach 30 % or more if compared to total area of land take (CORINE LC 2006 results). Stronger links between EU urban and soil policies could encourage this further (e.g. following up respective 6th EAP Thematic strategies).

European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Informal Council of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571

DECISION No 1600/2002/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme

Methodology

Methodology for indicator calculation

The indicator is currently calculated from Corine Land Cover 2000 and 2006 mapped from Landsat and SPOT satellite images (CLC 2000-2006 change database version 16). Changes from agriculture (CLC class 2xx), forest and semi-natural/natural land (CLC class 3xx), wetlands (CLC class 4xx) or water (CLC 5xx) to urban (CLC class 1xx) are grouped according to the land cover accounts methodology. Land cover change values are converted to grid cells which are aggregated by countries. In addition to comparable results between countries, the use of the CLC geographic database allows computing the same indicator for smaller units such as regions or river basins. When the indicator refers to country surface, areas are calculated for consistency reasons from the same CLC database as used for the indicator; it may lead to small differences with official country surface numbers due to the use of a single geographical projection system.

Land take = LCF2 (21+22) + LCF3 (31+32+33+34+35+36+37+38) + LCF13 (development of green urban areas over previously undeveloped land) - part of LCF38 (conversion of sport and leisure facilities from previously developed land)

Only polygonal transport areas are recorded in the indicator; land uptake by linear transport infrastructures development will be integrated in a further step on the basis of a high resolution geographical database of transport infrastructures.

Methodology for gap filling

Need to map transport infrastructure or artificial areas currently under CLC's minimum mapping unit (25 ha or 100m) by combining CLC with high resolution datasets or modelling transport infrastructure coverage.

Methodology references

No methodology references available.

Uncertainties

Methodology uncertainty

CSI014 has been processed according to the land accounting methodology. Both for facilitating computation and visualising spatial change, land accounts are processed using a grid of 1x1 km. Each cell contains the exact CLC values but spatial aggregations are made of entire grid-cells, which may lead to some very limited marginal uncertainty for the border of a given national or regional land unit.

In CLC1990-2000 changes were mapped by countries usually by intersecting CLC1990 and CLC2000 stock layers. The results were not always cleaned and non-changed parts might have remained in CLC 1990-2000 changes dataset. On the other hand, isolated changes below 25 ha could not be mapped by this technology. In CLC2000-2006 changes were mapped directly. This way all changes exceeding 5 ha were mapped and non-changed areas were better excluded from CLC-Changes.

Data sets uncertainty

Geographical and time coverage on EU level

Surfaces monitored with Corine Land Cover relate to the extension of urban systems that may include parcels not covered by construction, streets or other sealed surfaces. This is particularly the case for discontinuous urban fabric and recreation areas, which are considered as a whole. Monitoring the indicator with satellite images leads to the exclusion of small urban features in the countryside and most of the linear transport infrastructures, which are too narrow to be observed directly. Therefore, differences exist between CLC results and other statistics collected with different methodologies such as point or area sampling or farm surveys; this is often the case for agriculture and forest statistics. However, the trends are generally similar. The gap will be filled in at a further stage on the basis of a new high resolution database of transport infrastructures and calculations based on established coefficients for each type of transport.

Geographical and time coverage at the EU level:All the EU-27 member states (except Greece) are covered with both CLC 2000 and 2006 results. Land cover changes in Liechtenstein remained below the detection level of Corine Land Cover change methodology. In most countries number of years between two CLCs is 6 years (with exception of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Spain):

Albania (1995-2006)

11

Austria

6

Belgium

6

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1998-2006)

8

Bulgaria

6

Croatia

6

Cyprus

6

Czech Republic

6

Denmark

6

Estonia

6

Finland

6

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1996-2006)

10

France

6

Germany

6

Hungary

6

Iceland

6

Ireland

6

Italy

6

Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99

6

Latvia

6

Liechtenstein

6

Lithuania

6

Luxembourg

6

Malta

6

Montenegro

6

Netherlands

6

Norway

6

Poland

6

Portugal

6

Romania

6

Serbia

6

Slovakia

6

Slovenia

6

Spain (2000-2005)

5

Sweden

6

Switzerland

6

Turkey

6

United Kingdom

6

Representativeness of data on national level

At the national level, time differences between regions may happen in most countries and these are documented in the CLC meta data.

Rationale uncertainty

Newly urbanised areas (land uptake) may comprise also not artificial surfaces (private gardens or public green areas) and thus they may vary in their environmental conditions and provisioning of habitats or ecosystem services.